Foreign Policy

Weakness in American foreign policy in one region often invites challenges elsewhere, because our adversaries carefully follow diminished American resolve. Similarly, presidential indecisiveness, whether because of uncertainty or internal political struggles, signals that the United States may not respond to international challenges in clear and coherent ways. Taken together, weakness and indecisiveness have proved historically to be a toxic combination for America's global interests.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday warned against a hasty withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and offered a sobering assessment of the country despite what he called its "remarkable transition" in the last two years. Crocker, in his last meeting with Western journalists before retiring next month, spoke a day after President Obama reiterated his desire to end the American presence in Iraq, where about 140,000 U.S. troops remain.

The White House on Monday unveiled a Sudan policy that seeks a middle ground between punishing the country for its actions in Darfur and appeasing it, a step away from the get-tough policy advocated by President Obama during his election campaign. The announcement of the new policy came after seven months of debate within the administration. It was cautiously welcomed by advocates of stringent measures to end the violence in Darfur, who expressed relief that the White House did not adopt a more conciliatory approach.

As he embraces direct talks with Iran and weighs his strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is facing a new political threat from Republicans: Be hawkish on foreign policy or risk letting your party be painted as weak in next year's midterm elections. Top Republicans have adopted that line of attack in recent days, led by congressional leaders and at least two of the party's possible 2012 presidential contenders. Their warnings to the president mark a shift in tone and tactics for a Republican Party that had been largely supportive of Obama administration policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Obama takes the world stage this week amid an array of international challenges that have bedeviled American presidents for decades, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the drive of "rogue" nations toward nuclear power and uncertainty in the U.S. relationship with Russia. It's enough to make his domestic agenda, be it healthcare or the economy, look simple. But the president does not see those two arenas as distinct. As Obama steps to the podium of the United Nations for the first time Tuesday, the White House is deeply mindful of the interconnections between his international and domestic agendas -- and of the potential for his performance on the global stage to strengthen his position at home.

President Obama and his top advisors on Friday began dealing in White House meetings with the task of deciding whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. The president and his team pored over a report from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who warns that having too few troops could be fatal to the mission, but that extra military personnel do not guarantee success. The four-hour meeting, on the day when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, produced no clear decision, and the military and civilian advisors plan to continue talks next week.

The American envoy's armed convoy rumbled through the dusty streets of Kabul, stopping at one polling place, then another, as Afghans voted in their first contested presidential election. In the August heat, Richard C. Holbrooke watched the balloting, his satisfaction tinged with concern. Widespread violence had been averted. But the integrity of the election, so vital to American plans, had yet to be proved. Mingling with people and sampling pastry sold by some children on a corner, Holbrooke said the process appeared "peaceful and orderly," but warned as he squinted at one of the complicated punch cards that "the test comes when people count the ballots."

In a political race most analysts predicted would hinge on domestic bread-and-butter issues, foreign policy has emerged as a major battleground -- and a potential Achilles' heel for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

President Obama said after meeting with top U.S. military leaders Wednesday that targeting extremists would be a top priority for the armed forces in Afghanistan. Obama met for nearly two hours with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the secure Pentagon conference room known as Tank. He emerged to shake hands with troops and promised to increase the involvement of civilian U.S. government agencies to work on governance, agriculture, civil justice and other issues in Afghanistan.

If the federal government used taxpayer funds to construct houses of worship in this country, it would blow a gaping hole in the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state. But is the Constitution also violated when U.S. officials abroad pay for a mosque or endorse religious activities in the furtherance of this nation's foreign policy? Our answer is no, but policymakers still need to be cautious about mixing religion and diplomacy.